UDRP Sleep Number tries to reverse hijack

Spaceship Spaceship


Hand-picked NewsTop Member
A UDRP panel has found that mattress company Sleep Number Corporation tried to reverse domain name hijack Sleep Number once owned and used the domain name, and in 2018, started forwarding the domain to In its Complaint, Sleep Number alleged that the domain owner stole the domain name from it. When the Respondent presented evidence of buying the domain name through domain marketplace Sedo, Sleep Number changed its allegation to say that the Respondent either knew it was stolen or was willfully blind to it.
Read More.
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
John B is the man! I 'm wondering what sleepnumber corp thought was too 'cheap'?
I 'm wondering what sleepnumber corp thought was too 'cheap'?

It was an insane allegation. The price was determined by an auction with a reserve price:

Screenshot 2023-11-02 at 4.45.41 PM.png
Like the title suggests, I wouldn't call this "reverse domain hijacking". From what I understand:

Select Comfort DID own the domain name previously. At some point they no longer were the current registrant of the domain (I haven't recently looked at the whois history, but it's there.)

The domain then was listed for sale at Sedo, where it was sold to the current registrant (the respondee of the UDRP).
The decision is posted here:

Like the title suggests, I wouldn't call this "reverse domain hijacking"

Screenshot 2023-11-03 at 12.34.12 PM.png

Firstly, one does not accuse someone else of a crime with no evidence whatsoever, in a decision one intends to have published.

Secondly, one does not certify a trademark Complaint to be "complete" as to all material facts and omit to mention that one's application to register an alleged mark was refused:
Screenshot 2023-11-02 at 12.27.12 PM.png

The UDRP is a trademark dispute policy. It is not a general "domain name court". Filing a UDRP with no evidence of a trademark, and using it as a platform to make accusations having nothing to do with a trademark, is an improper use of the UDRP. Engaging in fraud while alleging theft with no evidence thereof is not a good approach.

However, as noted in the decision itself, the Panel decided on its own to address the issue of improper use of the Policy, and there was no such request in the Response.
Last edited:
The only winners are the attorneys $$$$

how much these UDrP cost?